On October 20th in Felton CA, Mike Rugg Will Turn The Bigfoot Skeptic World Upside Down


Mark your calendars and please plan to attend the October 20th Bigfoot Discovery Days V with Mike Rugg, Lenny Green, Bill Munns and the recently unearthed: Roger Patterson Reel One touring film along with the FULL Patterson/Gimlin footage. The reel hasn't been viewed publicly since the 1970s and it supposedly contains gems like witness interviews and Patterson pouring Bigfoot cast. It has now been converted to DVD and will officially be revealed.

So, how is it going to turn the Patterson-Gimlin skeptic world upside down? According to Bill Munns, because of the discrepancies between the known scene of Roger casting a track, and the scene showing Roger holding two casts by a tree, skeptics have been using the discrepancies to support their claim that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin hoaxed the greatest film in Bigfoot history. The new film will show that there’s no connection between the two film scenes and prove that Roger was filmed more than once making a cast of a footprint track.

Here's Mike Rugg explaining what they'll be showing at the event:

Hello fellow searchers of truth,

Mark your calendars for Bigfooot Discovery Day V featuring the lost film of Roger Patterson on the 45th anniversary of the Patterson Gimlin Film, October 20, 2012 in Felton and Santa Cruz. This is an open invitation to all researchers to step forward and help develop a definitive proof of the film. Its especially important that we come together and cannonize this bit of evidence once and for all especially at this time when naysayers and hoaxers are putting out a new hit-piece on Patterson.

Below is a statement by Bill Munns, after he viewed a couple of clips from the film:

"A preliminary analysis of recently acquired film by Mike Rugg and the Bigfoot Discovery Museum is certain to change our analysis of issues related to the known filmed scene of Roger casting a trackway print. This film reel contains a segment showing Roger casting a footprint track, and then displaying the resulting hardened cast, and it is emphatically a different casting effort than the one commonly shown and often argued by the skeptical community as being the Bluff Creek casting. Further analysis is necessary and a proper 4K film frame scan of the footage is needed, but it can be said on no uncertain terms that the skeptical suspicions often cited as discrepancies between the known scene of Roger casting a track, and the scene showing Roger holding two casts by a tree, can no longer be relied upon to support any hoax claims, because the connection between the two film scenes is now disconnected by the proof that Roger was filmed more than once making a cast of a footprint track.

Based on the footage so far made available to me, I cannot yet make a determination if this newly acquired footage was taken at Bluff Creek, but we now must logically consider the following alternatives:

1. The original known scene of Roger casting a track was at Bluff Creek and this new one is not.

2. The new footage is of Roger at Bluff Creek and the old well-known footage was not.

3. Neither of the footage scenes was taken at Bluff Creek and the actual Bluff Creek described casting footage is still unseen and un-analyzed.

But one can no longer simply assume the old footage of Roger must have been taken at Bluff Creek, because it was the only footage known and talk of a demo casting film was dismissed as a rumor. We now know for a certainty that demo casting footage does exist (at least one of the two known versions of footage must be so), and so any analysis trying to identify Roger casting a track with what is described to have occurred at Bluff Creek must now be proven with a far higher degree of compelling proof than anyone has offered to date.

Bill Munns September 4, 2012"

Spread the word--- its time to pay homage to Roger Patterson, and counter attack the smear campaign.

Mike


To attend the event, go here for more information: bigfootdiscoveryproject.com

Comments

  1. lol, this new footage doesn't seem to help the case that there's a guy in a suit walking across the screen though....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's always something new with you skeptics. We know your game now. Keep throwing nonsense on the wall and see what sticks.

      Delete
    2. nonsense? sticking with the scientific method and requiring verifiable evidence is nonsense?

      this is the type of thinking that gets you all pigeonholed as crazy people

      Delete
    3. Anyone else ever wonder why Patti has big slipper feet, but zero toe detail - yet these casts have toes - amazing huh?

      Delete
    4. I love when the scoffers give a cursory glance over the film and then conclude it is fake, when in fact studying it in depth reveals more and more how real it is... In other words, keep opening your mouth and proving what idiots you are, guys.

      Delete
    5. @ anon 742...jesus man, you can barely see the face on patty and your telling me you have some special ability to tell that "hey bob...yeah roger?...you know, i think theres something missing on this costume of ours...oh yeah, whats that?...it needs some slippers, yeah slippers would totally throw any skeptics out there" also, people have been analyzing this film for DECADES and haven't noticed any "slippers" dont expect any of us to take you seriously.

      Delete
    6. Patty haters have always been clueless fools, worse some of them (the hardcore hoax fanatics) know the footage is a living female bigfoot demonstrated so by their mere persistence. Sincerely hope Munns won't bother with some lame suit somewhere because anybody going to such extremes of having a suit recreated means their motives are of ill intent. Only those (authorities) wanting to keep the status quo on this species are those willing enough to attempt it, means they're taking it very seriously. Munns is, like others in the field, dedicated to the truth and it irritates the dark forces behind the hoax claim. Investigators into other conspiracy matters end up sick, politician Steven Schiff in his UFO research even died, etc. Not saying there's direct signs of danger just worth knowing and hope Munns won't give these damn fakers the time of day because that's what they are fakers deserving no attention when whatever they have is already known by us to be fake through enough knowledge about Patty to conclude she's real with nonhuman bone sizes and limbs moving correctly where an actor wouldn't be in any position to. Seeing a claimed suit on video should be sufficient especially when we know any suit IS fake, so why bother.

      Delete
  2. It might make those who believe there is a bigfoot possible have another argument point for others, but it will do nothing to the skeptics or trolls. A few fence sitters might lean one way or another. Nothing but a body, spread on every media possible that is it real will change anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. elbe trackway hoax, lol lol lol

      Delete
    2. This fella is 6'8", goes 400 bills. Come up to WA State and pop off in person.

      I double dog dare ya

      Delete
    3. Why do people think big fat people are tough, or can fight?

      Delete
    4. He's not fat and definitely bigger and smarter than you.

      Delete
    5. 420 lbs is fat, not trying to be mean, it's just the facts.

      Delete
    6. Oh, I am fat but not rolls and rolls fat. No doubt about that. I gained 60lbs after being put on meds to prevent another blood cancer induced heart attack back in '06. I use to be a powerlifter, working out at the local military base. Think of guys in the world's strongest man competitions. Then add 60lbs of fat. Add in some martial arts, police and corrections training, defensive tactics and sports and you get some of my background. And alot of fat people can't fight and are wimps. I have taken more blows to the head than anyone except fighters, never once being knocked out or even down. But if you knew all my history you wouldn't say much to my face. You never know when one of us fat guys can fight and are tougher than boot leather. Plus I am generally a nice guy. Mellow, live and let live. I just love a good argument. And work in a very dangerous place.

      Delete
    7. It's clear you have taken numerous blows to the head by how you fell for the Elbe hoax.

      Delete
    8. I love it! lol. You can always tell the people who cant fight and who are the biggest pansies out their. They are the first to claim how big they are, and how much they work out, and how much martial arts training and fighting they have done. Those are the ones who are the first to fall. Big Jim, stick to the elbe trackway, please study it for the rest of your life and leave the rest of the world to peace without you. Big Jim the fool

      Delete
    9. Did I say I could fight? Nope, I said some of my background and that I work in a very dangerous place which has caused me to be repeatedly hit in the head. Anyone can track me down through screen names and then start looking into my life. There is all kinds of documentation showing my background, you just need to know where to look. Anyone who feels so inclined may test the proof first hand. I am not some little skidmark left on underwear that learned to use a computer, too afraid to post my name, that infects this site making noises like a bantam rooster trying to scare off wolves. I could even post pictures of me back then, but the skidmarks would say they were photoshopped. Ask around if you can figure out my background, enough people know who I am that sooner or later you will hear the truth. And they will tell you it not never smart to poke a bear.

      Delete
    10. Jim Jr. I suggest you quit that job because your ranting does not make sense. "Nope, I said some of my background and that I work in a very dangerous place which has caused me to be repeatedly hit in the head." WTF does that even mean? Do you work in a ship yard and can't avoid moving steel? LOL.

      Delete
    11. No, I wish I worked in a shipyard, that would be cool. I work with the criminally insane and those who have commited crimes and are under going evaluation or treatment to stand trial. Many of them are very violent or act violent to avoid prison. Since I am very large, when newbees are trying to make a name for themselves or when a person is psychotic and feel threatened they go after the one they consider the biggest threat. Usually me. I have worked in this field for many years at a couple different hospitals. My current work location and career is 60 times more likely to be injured on the job than any other job in Washington state. More than police, firefighters, fishermen according to L&I.

      Delete
  3. But the "Knower" says that suit is fake. All hail to the "Knower". He "knows". You know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We know who The Knower is, just some old squatchy troll looking for attention. How do we know that, because Patty's real and no suit is how we know that.

      Delete
    2. We know who The Knower is, just some old squatchy troll looking for attention. How do we know that, because Patty's fake and no body ever is how we know that.

      Delete
  4. Prior to the famous 1967 movie, Roger Patterson tried more than once to make money with bigfoot. Why is there any reason to believe that his famous footage was not a hoax, another attempt to make money with bigfoot, which Patterson did with the October 1967 footage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 45 years later, and we still cannot make a film that even compares to his film...and he didnt have photoshop, after affects, sony vegas, etch.

      Delete
    2. these facts here are the whole patterson problem. he was a sheister who just happened to run into a mythical ape no one else can film!

      Delete
    3. Many people look for bigfoot for decades and never see one. It does seem hard to believe that Patterson and Gimlin go across two states with the purpose of filming a bigfoot and they happen to run into one and film it.

      Delete
    4. Why? This was a first and there's always a first, it's only afterwards that it's taken this long so your claim's not valid. Since the species is there, smart and intelligent whatever they are, obviously this film might as well show the real thing. Especially when it's this realistic and never been successfully recreated as a suit, that speaks volumes that it's in fact quite impossible to fake.

      Delete
    5. If you look on Patty's back, you can see the hood line where the costume hood is pulled over the head.

      Delete
    6. Dummy it's hair, the massive tall body build proves her real.

      Delete
  5. suit has been found

    trackway footage has already been proven to show the tracks were faked, this is not opinion but fact

    only the hardcore footers still believe the pgf is real

    alot of footers now believe the pgf is fake and I have a lot of respect for them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I keep hearing that the PGF suit has recently been found. Well, where is it?

      Delete
    2. Ohio -

      Wright Patterson AFB

      Delete
    3. I have seen this suit...it is not the Patti suit.

      Could well have been used in other hoax videos but not the PG film.

      The hair/fur is not detailed enough plus it's lenght is well short of matching the figure in the PG film.

      It had it had no padding nor sized big enough for any to be added.

      It would be a struggle for a 6' man of average build to fit into this suit and not split it's seams.

      Delete
    4. As a suit project insider speaking I can tell you there was a new suit made, it's not old it's brand new. I've seen the one in question and it's not Patty for a number of reasons that people will notice if they ever get to see it. I will point those faults out if it happens. I don't know what that thing walking in the Patterson movie is but doubt that's a suit too because compared to what I've seen here there's no comparison, neither on a person or off.
      I want that to be known before people see it which is still not decided whether anybody ever will but these guys are pulling a fast one ala Georgia. If you ever see it you'll agree and I'll elaborate further then where and how it was made, this latest stunt is just that one more scam in a long line of bf scams.

      Delete
    5. What? There's a bigfoot costume at an Air Force base? Why would there be a bigfoot costume on display at an Air Force base?

      Delete
    6. Aren't a lot of ufo's supposedly taken to Wright Patterson? Ot maybe just a play on the names?

      Delete
  6. LMFAO! That's the last thing bleevers need to be worried about as far as the footage goes.

    Jerry Romney is in a suit walking across a creek bed.

    Furthermore, really Mike Rugged? That's all you have? That's the big Laguna? LMFAO.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love those bigfoot hating trolls bothering to come here and spam. LOL

      Delete
  7. All hail "the knower"

    A rudimentary suit was found in the trunk of DELETED mother's old DELETED but that was years ago. Plus, it didn't match - they did a DNA test. They found someone else's DNA inside that suit.

    Don't ask me how I know that, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think this will do much to satisfy anyone.
    I really don't understand why Mrs.Patterson doesn't release everything she has to shut down every bit of doubt unless what she has won't help but instead would show it really is a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She basically knows nothing about it that's why she never speaks out, like most of us she's never seen a Bigfoot herself except in her late husband's film like the rest of us.

      Delete
    2. She probably has home movies of Roger Patterson laughing while holding up the bigfoot costume in one hand and a wad of bills that he made with the film in the other hand.

      Delete
    3. Retarded, are you? Seems like the only fakers here ar the ones too naive about this. Even the pic above of RP casting one of her tracks you can see the soil pushed up surrounding the print as she walked, great weight did that naturally.

      Delete
  9. Quote:

    "Why is there any reason to believe that his famous footage was not a hoax"

    The reasons are in the footage. The evidence of the individual in the footage falls in favor of the film being of a genuine non-human creature of some sort.

    Those are your reasons. The evidence weighs in favor of it being genuine.

    The evidence in the footage drastically drains the potency of any hoax argument based on Patterson's previous activities. No matter what Patterson did previously, the evidence in the film stands.

    Patterson wrote a great little book on Sasquatch. He should have made money on that book. Writing is hard work. Writing well is harder work. The book reads well. He should have made money on it. I hope he did and that his family still does.

    Hoax-claimers also make money off of bigfoot by making up stories about people wearing suits. They write books about this, and sell them and make money, and make money from TV appearances, and make money from lying about other people and damaging their lives and the lives of their families.

    That activity makes actual hoaxers, who are only pranksters, harmless by comparison. They aren't destroying people, reputations, families, jobs; the hoax-claimers are. They are not only destroying people and families, but earning money doing it.

    How nice to draw a paycheck via lying about people and damaging or ruining their lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the low budget bigfoot movie that Patterson tried to make before the October 1967 footage? The movie was about an Indian tracker guide who helps cowboys track down a bigfoot. The movie had Bob Gimlin in a long haired Indian wig.

      Patterson was a con. He conned you and many others. His hoax turned out better than Patterson could have hoped for.

      Delete
    2. LOL Indeed, because you and other geeks believe it's a hoax when it isn't that's the real beauty of it all.

      Delete
    3. If it's real, why does it have a diaper butt? That was obviously a costume.

      Delete
    4. She doesn't you nitwit, check MK Davis' findings on these all-important matters of the moving butt proving it a real ass.

      Delete
  10. oh boy here we go again. another groundbreaking 'footery announcement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To quote Bullwinkle Moose:

      This time for sure.

      Delete
  11. So roger was going round casting tracks all over the place now was he?


    Hoaxer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Do you credulous JREF butt plugs still bleeve the fruity looking lying low character piece of shit who's pretending to have found the suit actually found the suit ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol its you again. Still raging hard after the jref folks sent you on your merry way?

      Delete
    2. ^^
      So you are one of the credulous butt plugs that bleeves he found the suit ? Are you going to be crushed when it doesn't happen ?

      Delete
    3. No one cares about the suit. We don't need a suit to validate that the pgf is fake. Its not required. What is required is you footers to show some evidence for your wild claims.

      Delete
    4. ^
      So you have the intelligence to clearly pick up on the clues to see the fruity looking guy who's pretending to have found the suit is pretending to have found the suit ?

      Delete
    5. Patty's build itself proves her real, we don't need some suit to tell us that.

      Delete
  13. I think people need to understand that all these claims of huge events in the bigfoot world are being made by shawn. Hes the one who comes up with the cute little titles. hes the one we all should be telling to knock this crap off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Na he is the entertainment coordinator

      Delete
    2. its red meat for the non-bleevers. they eat it up

      Delete
    3. But there's a lot more to beef than the color red

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlRbSMywTQg

      Delete
  14. The scientific method seems to fly over the head of these footers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you pretending not to be a footer because your family makes fun of your obsession with bigfoot ?

      Delete
  15. still you dumbass bleevers cling on to this proven to be false footage....

    in 40 years when bigfoot is still not proven and evidence is still coming soon, ima laugh at you pathetic human beings. sorry excuses, plauges to the earth.

    how retarded to you have to be to believe in a giant man ape roaming around the woods that has yet to be discovered?!?! think about it you retards!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you pretending to be a skeptic because you realize how ridiculous it is for an adult to be obsessed with a mythical creature like you are ?

      Delete
    2. Or believe in one, like you do.

      Delete
    3. This species is hard to prove because it doesn't want to be found but I love how the skeptics eventually will be eating loads of stinking crow any day or year now, the fact pgf's real is only furthered by these closet believers' presence.

      Delete
    4. I will kick you in the chest and but fuc your mom while you watch. Then I will pull it out and shove it down your throat!

      Delete
  16. If they are asking all researchers to come together and look over this film I say this. Let me look over the film and I can tell. I have been saying for about 6 years now that the part of the film that shows Roger Patterson making the cast prints was film in another location and not at Bluff Creek. And I also have siad that the part of the film that shows Roger Patterson holding the cast prints in his hands by the tree that part of the film was shot about 15 mile up in the woods behind Roger house. So with that in mind and with me saying this for the last 6 years I know more about the film then any of these other researchers. And I am the only man that research this film that has seen a real Bigfoot face to face. I am not a skeptic when it comes to a real Bigfoot but I can say after all the research I have done and all the test I have done on the PG film I can say it was 100% hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. will your proof be on the horizon anytime soon? Or will it be SOON.......?

      Delete
    2. We're all seen your lame tests Leroy and we can all attest to them being nonsense that only further helping the Bigfoot/PGF case as authentic.

      Delete
    3. Leroy, i think you are confusing your wife for the sasquatch encounter face to face. You should really keep her chained up.

      Delete
    4. Leroy you are a fuctard craving for attention.

      Delete
  17. One things for certain: one who goes to bed with an itchy butthole wakes up with stinky fingers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You scratch them off your itchy sphincter then eat something with the pinworms on your dirty hands then the process starts all over again.

      Those sneaky little bastards...lol

      Delete
    2. Go ahead and laugh Mayor McCheese (McGinn). Nasty ass gay humour.

      Delete
  18. It is so funny that some can post without knowing nothing about and without realizing what will be revealed. Perhaps it is time to realize the wonders at your feet.

    ReplyDelete
  19. what is revealed on the unseen film will determine whether or not patterson was clean shaven while casting the 'foot . the controversy is he has a vid where he is casting a 'foot but he has a three day old beard. another vid has him clean shaven. that will be the blockbuster revelation coming from the film. if mkd can find the butt on patty then he'll probably find a'foot or two in this somewheres.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MKD couldn't find a hole in Vegas with a $100.00 bill on his forehead.

      Delete
    2. The beard thing is so old. Patterson was clean shaven casting then heavy beard holding up the casts. supposedly it happened all the same day at bluff creek. go figure. its bigfoot. bigfoot makes beards grow super fast!!!

      :D

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 9:06. Or by his more common name, steven fish eyes

      Delete
  20. These people look like they are having a great time and just had a wonderful meal. Free provided by ..........

    http://www.floridabigfoot.org/


    You guys need to at least check it out before saying anything.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So funny to hear the computer nerds come out and play on this blog.

    If you ever met Patterson back in the 60's, he's twice the man most of you fags will ever be. And don't forget Gimlim was a boxer.

    Just sayin', most here prob never even ridden a horse, let alone left their metrosexual apartments in the city.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They'll lie and say they do.

      Delete
    2. Did you actually know Patterson back in the 60s? Did you pal around with him?

      Delete
    3. What the hell does gimlin being a boxer, experience with horses, or metrosexual apartments have to do with anything other than your obsession with these two men

      Delete
  22. This is such a bullshit claim, and likely just a quick cash grab at some old footage that shows the SAME footage we've all seen a million times.

    Its probably no new footage, and another scam just to get ppl to pay for this new nothing!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, Maybe they can show us why the footage of Patty is two clips spliced together and not one full fluid clip. Stop! wait a sec.. back up and start right there, OK Action!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I visited the the bigfoot museum and Mike Rugg touched my no-no. I liked it!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Replies
    1. Don't worry. The first presidential debate is tomorrow.

      Delete
  26. The Knower here,

    This is all well and good. But the suit has been found. Have I not already proved my insider BF knowlege here? I say it.. It happens. I have been lucky enough to have been granted extra special knowlege regarding "the suit". You will be BLOWN AWAY when you find out who has it. And even more so when you actually see it. The biggest evidence it was a suit has actually been staring us all in the face for years.

    Hint: Sweaty Yeti often draws lines around it in paint and claims it as evidence of real animal. The fact is, when this part of the suit is revealed, it will be one of the 17 telltale signs that it is THE original pgf suit.

    17!!!! Bill Munns wont know what hit him! I was certainly floored.

    After seeing this suit evidence, you WILL have NO choice but to acknowledge the hoax. You will cry.

    The Knower has inside info that would literally make your spleen rupture. You will be blown away.

    There will also be "even more" evidence released besides the suit itself.

    -The Knower

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're a real dumbskull, aren't you. There is no suit and if there is we'll laugh it off the block. Sweaty's done a marvelous job in proving the film real, only thing he's wrong about is Bob H. fitting Patty's height - he doesn't he's way shorter.

      Sweaty's basically proven Patty real by those arm bone lengths alone, they don't fit old Robby and I'm sure you know this too but chooses to block it out as it doesn't fit the preconceived plan. And since the arm bones don't fit he can't move the fingers either, etc. Patty's limbs basically are positioned in such fashion no human could work within which means we know it's real and no suit, alas you're fooling nobody but yourself.

      Delete
    2. I'll bite: its the calf muscle! There will be some sort of padding or rubber mold in that area. I remember reading about one of the first hand reports and Roger was exclaiming "You can see the muscles!".

      Delete
  27. The morons on here that claim a suit is the answer, cannot and will never be able to produce a suit in not only modern or today's materials but also not be able to produce a suit in the materials available in 1967.

    It cannot be done. This would be the easiest way to disprove the Patty Bigfoot argument. But, it will not happen. Keep talking assholes.

    As far as the scientific method, postulate a theorem after an observation and go about proving it by duplication if possible. I believe this is exactly what the Bigfoot community is trying to do on their own dime without university or government funding, and on their own time. Again, keep talking assholes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you couldn't create any costume today to look exactly as it looked in any 45 year old home movie.

      Delete
    2. This one looks like the Patterson bigfoot.

      http://www.ourbigfoot.com/patterson_bigfoot_suit.html

      Delete
  28. Who cares about a suit and a 1967 home movie?

    This does not prove or disprove anything IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was what is known as a senseless comment.

      Delete
    2. I'd rather be wright than wrong

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia